You know, there is a precedent for Brenda's action -- that is, she'd done it before. In an earlier episode, Brenda was hot on the trail of a rapist-murderer when a lawman from Texas (I forget his rank) showed up looking for the same guy, who'd committed a whole series of rape-murders in Texas. Brenda was not about to turn over her suspect to the Texas authorities, but she was able to use the lawman's presence as leverage to get a confession. The killer could confess and be tried in California, which had had about a dozen executions in the last 35 years. Or he could not confess and be tried in Texas, which still has the highest execution rate of any state in the country. He confessed. The lawman told Brenda that since the killer wouldn't be going back to Texas, maybe she could use his evidence to help get a conviction and handed her a folder containing photographs of the Texas victims. Brenda was so horrified by what the guy had done to those women that she let the lawman take him. His exit line: "I sure played that one right!"

So she sent that guy to his death just as surely as she did T-Bone. Both of them were scum of the earth, but Brenda overstepped her bounds when she played judge-and-jury. The question then is whether that weighs more heavily than the fact that she gets the job done. How highly valued is she in that politically charged situation where she works?

Incidentally, this coming November California will be voting on the proposed abolition of the death sentence.

I remember that episode. That one wasn't quite as questionable, since she did turn the killer over to another law enforcement agency. Sort of a warm-up for T-Bone.

Chris, it seems only fair that you answer the same question you asked Mike. What would you have done in Brenda's place? Me, I wouldn't have taken him back to his gang neighborhood. But then, I'll be the first to admit I'd make a lousy cop. No stomach for the work, and I'm not really brave enough.

So would I...and then I would have regretted it. It was satisfying, seeing Brenda solve her problem in such a tough way. But "satisfying" and "right" aren't always the same thing. I guess I'm sitting on the fence on this one.

That's about where I sit, too. When Brenda followed the new "Johnson Rule" and ordered protection for the sleazy lawyer regardless of whether he cooperated or not, Raydor told her it was "the right and honorable thing to do." You can't really argue with that, can you? But when you try to work within a system and follow its rules, and it's the system itself that backs you into a corner and forces you to make the kind of decision Brenda had to make -- what happens to "right and honorable" then? I don't believe there is one right answer.

But doesn't a system that forces you to choose between acting as judge-and-jury or setting a killer free forfeit its right to expect "right and honorable" actions? I'd probably suffer a little conscience problem later, but I'm pretty sure I'd do what Brenda did.

1. Everything Danish over here. Forbrydelsen II has finished - ten episodes, small number of suspects, kept me guessing more or less to the end. The new Danish drama is Borgen (Government), about manoeuverings among political parties. No murders and no Sarah Lund, though both of her investigatory partners have turned up, one a TV news chief and the other a party leader's husband. I've just finished episode 2 (of ten) and it definitely holds the attention. Would I be right in thinking that US TV companies don't buy subtitled series from Europe? Your loss, if so.

2. Great Expectations - 3 one-hour episodes. Good atmosphere but rather a travesty of the story (I've re-read the book in order to check). Too much Bentley Drummle and not enough Wemmick (no Aged Parent or Miss Skiffins, aargh!), various made-up scenes, etc. Ray Winstone and David Suchet excellent as Magwitch and Jaggers, but Gillian Anderson not my idea of Miss Havisham.

Unfortunately, it's true that American TV won't show series with subtitles. HBO won't even show foreign-language movies, although some of the other pay channels occasionally do. But for the most part our TV proceeds on the assumption that it's impossible to underestimate the intelligence of the viewing audience.

Gillian Anderson as Miss Havisham? Oh dear. Even if the casting was right...it wouldn't be right. Anderson was terrible in Bleak House. She played her entire role with the same pained expression on her face, as if she'd eaten something that disagreed with her and couldn't find the Pepto-Bismal.

Sort-of coincidentally, I caught the 1946 David Lean Great Expectations on TV yesterday - haven't seen it for years. John Mills rather too old for Pip, some of the sets were pretty stagey and there was no sign of Orlick, BUT most of the dialogue was actually as written by Dickens, shock-horror! And we got a bit of the Aged P, too.